BS: Liberal hate

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 May 06 - 07:19 AM

BillD,

I take full responsibility for my failure to make clear the intent of this thread.

Thank you, Amos and Jeanie, for seeing what I was saying in spite of my not spelling it out.


I did NOT post a thread on Cohen's first article, as I saw no purpose in it ( see this thread, if you want to know what would have been said)) I did think the second one brought up a point worth discussion, but the KNEEJERK reaction of some people here has made that unlikely.

It AIN"T ABOUT Colbert, Cohen, OR Bush.

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate
From: GUEST
Date: 11 May 06 - 07:44 AM

It's about BB !!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 May 06 - 08:12 AM

wrong again, GUEST


Another kneejerk reaction...

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate
From: Bobert
Date: 11 May 06 - 09:27 AM

Very insightfull, Ron...

Yes, part of the Bush "family" propaganda story line is that the problems in the country are creted by "intellectuals"... Daddy Bush was the master of tyrying to pigeon hole ***eductaed*** folks into this scarey band of misfits and trouble-makers... It no wonder that Bush won't write the checks to fund "No Child Left Behind (Unrecruited)"...

So with this skit that Bush the Junior did was purdy much a reverse psyhology attempt to sneakily play to his base of angry NASCAR dads by sterotyping what Bush thinks that "liberals" think of him... It remains to be seen if it worked with them bnut appears to have not worked on the general population as the polls numbers stayed at 33%...

Yeah, the Bush folks have tried to come up with things for their boyu to do to get the numbers up but the problem that Bush has has little to do with his likeablity or his regular-guyness but his failed policies... And with the next election cycle coming into play there is little, if any, chance, that Bush can turn things around since he can no longer even trust the Republican controlled Congress to follow lockstep...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate
From: balladeer
Date: 11 May 06 - 09:32 AM

I live in Canada, simultaneously outside of, and totally invested in, US affairs of state. I rely on Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert to help me see through the theatrics of CNN and Fox reportage. I did wonder what the White House was thinking when they opened the door to Stephen and let him freely have at the captive Bushies. And then I reflected on the joy of free speech. That Stephen said what he said and was not "disappeared" for it - when all is said and done that is what makes the US a great country.

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 May 06 - 09:33 AM

Bobert,

"So with this skit that Bush the Junior did was purdy much a reverse psyhology attempt to sneakily play to his base of angry NASCAR dads by sterotyping what Bush thinks that "liberals" think of him."

Could you possibly tell me what you are talking about????

WHAT SKIT?


Earth to Bobert....

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate
From: Arne
Date: 11 May 06 - 11:36 AM

BeardedBRuce:

Bobert,

"So with this skit that Bush the Junior did was purdy much a reverse psyhology attempt to sneakily play to his base of angry NASCAR dads by sterotyping what Bush thinks that "liberals" think of him."

Could you possibly tell me what you are talking about????

WHAT SKIT?

Dubya's "double" skit at the NPC dinner. Do pay attention. And try to read a bit (other than Freeperville and such). Then you might have known about the skit.

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate
From: GUEST,AR282
Date: 11 May 06 - 01:34 PM

>>AR282--Huh? Doing a little projecting, friend?<<

Are you?

>>I'm talking about the power of effective listening and communication vs. ranting and venting.<<

You imply that liberals do this and it costs liberal candidates votes. I say that is pure BS. People vote for who they like not because liberals or conservatives act this way or that. I sincerely hope you've never voted for a candidate for any other reason but what that candidate is offering.

>>There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. I completely fail to see how that insults anyone's intelligence or ability to think for themselves.<<

You think you're being fair and balanced when all you're really saying is, "C'mon, guys, be nice or these idiots will vote for the wrong people again." I'd rather be hated than patronized.

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate
From: GUEST,AR282
Date: 11 May 06 - 01:59 PM

>>Ar282...lemme get this right- you want to rewrite the man's words in a different context, claim they mean basically the same thing, then shoot down his original point based on YOUR rewrite? The situations you use to parody Cohen simply are not comparable.<<

They are, in fact, identical. His statements about black males in America are America's own institutionalized racism when directed at black males.

It's not expressed that way at Asians because they are the "model minority". So it is expressed in a different way. Black males are portrayed as self-absorbed pro athletes or gangstas, etc. Asian males are simply not portrayed--only the women. In the end, the message is the same: "That's how it is so get used to it."

>>" it doesn't matter why it is done, it based on race—period—and is therefore racism."

total nonsense! It...(meaning the process of instant 'profiling' by someone like a cabdriver) IS based on more than race...which is all Cohen was saying. They don't fret about young, black women, or even OLD black men. Is race partly involved? Of course it is, as a huge majority of holdups of cab drivers IS committed by young men of ethnic minorities. The cab drivers are playing the odds...breaking the law, but making bets on what potential customers look dangerous to them.<<

Again, it is that jaded attitude that enables you to state this without seeing the inherent racism. Suppose you meet a white woman who only dates black men. Is she a racist? Yes, I definitely think she is. Now suppose she says, "It's not race. It's the person he is inside that counts. If he was a two-faced abuser of women, I wouldn't waste two seconds with him even if he was the hottest black man I ever saw." Sounds reasonable until you ask, "But if he was the person he is right now, this person you claim to love so much, but he was white or at least not black, would you still be with him?" You will find you cannot get a straight answer (which means no, she would not be with him--he has to be black--first and foremost).

When a cabbie doesn't pick up a young black male, it is because of institutionalized racism--not necessarily his own innate racism. Cohen has completely bought into institutionalized racism to the point where he confuses it with more blatant forms of personal racism. Since it is not personal, it can't be recism and therefore it is okay for a cabbie to pass up young black males trying to flag him down for a ride just as it is okay for white men to journey to Bangkok and the Philippines to screw the Asian girls. "Its expected of us so it okay to behave that way. It is how the world works." Even if that is true, that does NOT make it okay.

>>Further, you are severely distorting the concept of racism when you profile any remark or action 'seeming' to be related to race that way.
Racism, properly considered, is generalized opposition to and denegration OF a group based solely on race and, usually, ranking one race as intrinsicly better than another....not just 'noticing' characteristics.<<

So the white man who goes to Asia to use it as his personal whorehouse not a racist? And I suppose he would have no objection to Asian men coming to his country in droves behave this way in his country. I suppose this white man must really respect Asian people and consider them equals. I suppose I could consider a black man to be equal to me in every possible way but I'm still not going to give one a ride anywhere because--well, you know how they are.

>>I could easily decide to be careful about entering certain neighborhoods without making wholesale judgments about the race of the folks there. My actions would be 'taking race into account', but not necessarily be racist.<<

But you're talking about a high crime area where everyone has to be careful. That's not the same as looking at a black individual and thinking, "I'm not giving this guy a ride, he's a young black male and they commit holdups." You're now making him the representative of the high crime area you'd never go into.

>>You can disagree with Cohen's analysis,,,but do it fairly!<<

I did.

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate
From: Amos
Date: 11 May 06 - 02:08 PM

Both Bush's "doubles skit" -- which I thought was genuinely funny == and the Colbert roast are available on Google Video.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate
From: Janie
Date: 11 May 06 - 03:31 PM

The topic was Liberals. If the topic were conservatives I would say the same thing. If the topic were moderates, I would say the same thing. All of us are influenced in our choices by any number of factors, including, though certainly not limited to, information and opinions we hear from other people. How much credence we may give to what some one else has to say can be effected (affected?) by how objective, logical, or rational that person seems to be, and how open they seem to be to hearing the validity of viewpoints that may not coinside with their own. I do not assume that all moderates have identical opinions, nor do I assume that all moderates have views that will necessarily be opposed to those of a liberal or conservative.

One of the reasons I mostly stay off of the political threads is that so many people, regardless of their orientation, appear to me to be closed systems that hear and comment only on those parts of another's post that confirm their already closely held opinions and beliefs (be those positive or negative). These discussions tend to be more about fingerpointing and righteous indignation than communication. People simply reacting to one another. Cognitive and emotional distortions abound. Insults fly. However, I do not assume that is true of every person who votes. If I have a conversation with some one about politics (or gardening, or anything else), I assume that each of us has the potential to share information and/or perspectives that might influence the other.   

I was implying nothing. But you are free to read implications into it if you choose. I have no control over that. And this is an excellent reminder to myself of why I usually think better before I post to these threads. So I'm out of here.

Janie

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate
From: GUEST,AR282
Date: 11 May 06 - 04:41 PM

>>The topic was Liberals. If the topic were conservatives I would say the same thing.<<

And you'd still be wrong. Conservatives do not influence whom I vote for. I vote for whom I think will do the best job. Nor do I think all conservatives don't listen. Really, I don't care if they do or not--they're not the person I voted for. THAT person had better listen to me, I don't if anyone else does.

>>How much credence we may give to what some one else has to say can be effected (affected?) by how objective, logical, or rational that person seems to be, and how open they seem to be to hearing the validity of viewpoints that may not coinside with their own. I do not assume that all moderates have identical opinions, nor do I assume that all moderates have views that will necessarily be opposed to those of a liberal or conservative.<<

You DID say that the bad actions of liberals has an adverse effect on how moderates vote. That may be true in some cases but you can't talk to those kinds of people anyway. I say it has nothing to do with the vast majority of moderates--they will vote for a candidate for roughly the same reasons I do.

>>One of the reasons I mostly stay off of the political threads is that so many people, regardless of their orientation, appear to me to be closed systems that hear and comment only on those parts of another's post that confirm their already closely held opinions and beliefs (be those positive or negative).<<

You participate as much as the next person from what I see. It's bad enough to have this holier-than-thou approach but then to contradict it on top of that. Wake up, you're no better than the rest of us who aren't afraid to get dirty.

>>Cognitive and emotional distortions abound. Insults fly. However, I do not assume that is true of every person who votes. If I have a conversation with some one about politics (or gardening, or anything else), I assume that each of us has the potential to share information and/or perspectives that might influence the other.<<

How can you get that out of it if you don't want to participate?

>>I was implying nothing.<<

You were. Maybe it wasn't your intention but if you think about what you said, you were implying that.

>>But you are free to read implications into it if you choose.<<

Since you refuse to admit you were implying anything, I guess I have no choice. Every statement has implications.

>>I have no control over that. And this is an excellent reminder to myself of why I usually think better before I post to these threads. So I'm out of here.<<

Being that no one attacked or flamed you--at least I didn't--that's pretty thin-skinned. You can't debate someone if you leave in a huff when they disagree.

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate
From: Bill D
Date: 11 May 06 - 04:44 PM

Ar282...you keep inventing new hypotheticals and suggesting they demonstrate your claim. What does a white man's choice of Asian prostitutes have to do with cautious cab drivers? Your rewrites are certainly not identical, in that cultural views of various races vary widely, and treatment of 'young, black men' needs to be examined on its own merits.

"...it is that jaded attitude that enables you to state this without seeing the inherent racism."

Jaded? ME?? That's a new one.

Anyway, I make a careful distinction about the use of the word 'racism'...you seem want it to cover ANY case where the race of the individual is obvious. Calling it 'institutionalized' to avoid having to prove a specific case is slippery logic. OF COURSE there is widespread racism...OF COURSE it is wrong for a cab driver to bypass a young black man.....just as it is wrong for a young man to hold up a cab driver. The fact is, young black often bypass guys who look like them!

My over-riding, basic point is, that you are trying to apply the term 'racism' way too broadly. If every perceived inequity between two ethnic groups is called racism, we lose the ability to accurately portray the more serious offenses.

I knew a woman who applied for several jobs and was not hired. She intimated it was racism, whereas those who knew her were not surprised at all, because she is just not a very personable individual!

You have to reserve serious labels for serious situations.

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate
From: DougR
Date: 11 May 06 - 07:41 PM

I don't know if Cohen reported that he DID receive some positive emails. I for one wrote him an email telling him that although I rarely agree with him, on this column I was in full agreement. Not that the "comedian" didn't have the right to do what he did, of course he did, but I also added in my email that I would have been equally incensed had the "comedian" treated Clinton the same way. And I'm certainly no fan of Clinton. I felt that the "comedian" was disrespectul of the office of the president.

Would anyone on this forum wish to be similarly treated in such a gathering?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate
From: CarolC
Date: 11 May 06 - 09:14 PM

Would anyone on this forum wish to be similarly treated in such a gathering?

I wouldn't. But then again, I wouldn't put myself in such a position in the first place.

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate
From: GUEST,AR282
Date: 11 May 06 - 09:43 PM

CarolC is right. Bush wanted it, he got it.

I remember when Clinton held some kind of dinner and invited Don Imus of all people. Imus gets up to speak and lambastes Clinton mercilessly about Monica Lewinsky--nasty remarks. Clinton is sitting there clearly displeased with Imus. Some people attacked Imus later and he responded on his radio show saying, "They invited me. They know what I'm like." As much as I hate Don Imus, I agreed with him on that one. Clinton invited the guy and, yes, he knew what he was like. If he didn't, he should've. He does now, at any rate.

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate
From: Donuel
Date: 11 May 06 - 09:45 PM

Bill, there are few people on Earth who can split a split hair as well as you.

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate
From: GUEST,AR282
Date: 11 May 06 - 10:21 PM

>>Ar282...you keep inventing new hypotheticals and suggesting they demonstrate your claim. What does a white man's choice of Asian prostitutes have to do with cautious cab drivers?<<

Once again, different races face different types of racism from whites (from others also but we're nto talking about them right now), different stereotypes. The cabbie who refuses to stop for a black male fare is working off the same institutionalized (or societal, if you wish) racism as the white man who goes to Asia to get laid. Both believe it is acceptable behavior--not necessarily laudable but more of a "and if it were you, what would YOU do?" kind of thing. The only difference between the two examples is that one pertains to work and the other pertains to pleasure. Both otherwise function on stereotyping another race to the point of no longer considering them equals, as fellow human beings.

>>Your rewrites are certainly not identical, in that cultural views of various races vary widely, and treatment of 'young, black men' needs to be examined on its own merits.<<

And I highly encourage you to do so because you will find that, in the end, the message is the same: "This is the way we see you. It is the way we will always see you. It's nothing personal but that's just how it is. Accept it and quit complaining, we're really not interested in confronting this inequality because it makes us feel uncomfortable being that we benefit so much at your expense and do not wish to give up that advantage and we're going to get mad and call you a damned PC whiner and a loudmouthed jerk looking for attention if you don't shut up. Now shut up!"

>>Jaded? ME?? That's a new one.<<

Yes, you. The racism isn't directed at you and a large segment of society will agree with you even if reluctantly so you apply it without compunction. I call that jaded.

>>Anyway, I make a careful distinction about the use of the word 'racism'...you seem want it to cover ANY case where the race of the individual is obvious. Calling it 'institutionalized' to avoid having to prove a specific case is slippery logic. OF COURSE there is widespread racism...OF COURSE it is wrong for a cab driver to bypass a young black man.....just as it is wrong for a young man to hold up a cab driver. The fact is, young black often bypass guys who look like them!<<

Talk about trying avoid having to prove a specific case of slippery logic! Give me an example of what you're talking about. Tell me how many black men you know who bypass other black men.

>>My over-riding, basic point is, that you are trying to apply the term 'racism' way too broadly. If every perceived inequity between two ethnic groups is called racism, we lose the ability to accurately portray the more serious offenses.<<

The offenses already are serious. The stereotypes are sexual in their nature and intended to go for jugular. It is tne media that propagates these stereotypes and yet offers nothing to counterbalance them. It becomes "Waiting for Godot" for minorities. They see the stereotypes and feel their effects on themselves and their people and wait in vain for something to counteract it and nothing comes. They wait for it from the same media that dishes on them. Without those counterbalances many of them have nothing by which to judge the truth and works as much on them as it does on that segment of society that has accepted these stereotypes as true even if no one wants to talk about it.

>>I knew a woman who applied for several jobs and was not hired. She intimated it was racism, whereas those who knew her were not surprised at all, because she is just not a very personable individual!<<

This is anecdotal and useless for me. Institutionalized racism is nothing that personal. It is its impersonal nature that makes its machinations against this or that minority so devastating because it seems to be objective, has no bone to pick, and so must be true.

>>You have to reserve serious labels for serious situations.<<

I'd rather reject the serious labels for the most serious situations. As a minority, you get labeled enough in this society. Way more than enough.

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate
From: CarolC
Date: 11 May 06 - 10:25 PM

The whole point of those dinners is that they are what is called, "roasts". The whole point of a roast is to "roast" someone. Roasting is what Imus, and Colbert were doing to Clinton and Bush. That was the reason they were asked to be there... to roast the "guest of honor" at the dinner (that would be Clinton in Imus' case, and Bush in Colbert's case). "Roasting" is where someone does a whole routine that consists entirely of making fun of the "guest of honor". That's what a "roast" is. That is what they are for.

Personally, I find the whole concept of "roasts" rather distasteful. But people keep having them, and the "roastees" keep showing up for them. And as long as that is something they all agree on, I don't see how anyone can take offense at what happens there.

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate
From: Ron Davies
Date: 11 May 06 - 11:13 PM

BB--

"It ain't about Colbert, Cohen or Bush". Wrong--and I think you know it. You continue your intellectual dishonesty. It is in fact particularly about Bush.

Cohen's thesis is that "the anger festering on the Democratic left will be taken out on the Democratic middle". What is the cause of this anger? Bush---his conduct and the fact that the US (and the world) will have suffered 8 years under the most despicable US regime since, probably, Buchanan.

So you are either a poor reader, or, since I believe your reading skills are actually quite good, you are being intellectually dishonest--again.

Actually, as I have been saying for a while now, I think at this early point the 2008 election is McCain's to lose--if he makes it through his own primaries and his health holds up. But this has nothing to do with Cohen's misdiagnosis of the political situation--and everything to do with the fact that McCain is demonstrably a man who thinks for himself, knows for damn sure what war really is--and therefore will not start one by choice--, and is no smarmy worm like our current beloved leader.

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate
From: Arne
Date: 11 May 06 - 11:21 PM

DougR:

Would anyone on this forum wish to be similarly treated in such a gathering?

Well, if ever I am an arrogant, lying a$$hole that managed to get many thousands of men, women, and children killed through incompetence, lust for power, and possibly actual malice, you have my permission to roast me similarly. In fact, I'd hope you had the good sense and integrity to do so.

You know, Doug, what would have been really funny? If the crowd there had taken out buckets of tar and feathers, and ridden the Doofus-In-Chief out of town on a rail. Now that's entertainment....

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 May 06 - 07:30 AM

" am not a member of the White House Correspondents' Association, and I have not attended its dinner in years (I watched this year's on C-SPAN). The gala is an essentially harmless event that requires the presence of one man, the president. If presidents started not to show up, the organization would have to transform itself into a burial association. But presidents come and suffer through a ritual that most of them find mildly painful, not to mention boring. Whatever the case, they are guests. They don't have to be there --"


The WHITE HOUSE DID NOT INVITE COLBERT.


Bush was invited by the White House Correspondents' Association.


Which has nothing to do with the premise of this thread- That the LIBERALS are more intent on destropying each other in the name of orthodoxy than in winning the election.

The title of this thread refers to the Liberal HATE for each other, NOT their hate for the conservatives- THAT I can understand ( from their point of view).

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 12 May 06 - 07:40 AM

BB, you gotta hang out with liberals more. If you did, you'd realize that their distaste for the activities of the Bush Crime Syndicate is far greater than their distaste for each other's "orthodoxy" (if there is any at all). Note my pointed avoidance of the word hate in either case.

And, I thought the thread title came directly from Cohen. Where in his column does he discuss "liberal hate for each other"?

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate
From: Bobert
Date: 12 May 06 - 07:58 AM

Have the rules changed 'round here that using capital letters is no longer SCREAMING???

Jus' curious???

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 May 06 - 08:06 AM

Bobert,

I was screaming.


Many of the comments here have been off-topic ( which is ok, but non-informative) and making claims that are false to justify points that are not being debated.

Sorry if my human frustration with not getting a reasonable discussion of a topic of interest came out- I guess I should go back to only looking at Fox News(*) for my thoughts, instead of trying to find out what people THINK about something.


* NOTE: This is hyperbole- I DO NOT WATCH FOX NEWS (shouted) though YOU have accused me many times of doing so, without any evidence.

Am I being too subtle for you?

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 May 06 - 08:12 AM

GUEST, TIA,

Cohen said
"The e-mails pulse in my queue, emanating raw hatred"

"The hatred is back."

"That's when the antiwar wing of the Democratic Party helped elect Richard Nixon. In this way, they managed to prolong the very war they so hated."



*I* titled the thread "Liberal hate", which I thought was a good summary. I apologize to all if I did not make it clearer the point I wished disussed- I thought it was apparant from the quote in the opening post. I seem to have been wrong.

If any object to the thread title, than *I* want to make sure that threads about CONSERVATIVES are only titled according to what Conservatives WANT them to be.

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate
From: Bill D
Date: 12 May 06 - 11:43 AM

"Bill, there are few people on Earth who can split a split hair as well as you."

Don...I thought about that all evening, and during my walk this morning. *grin*....I was going to just say something like "I take that as a compliment", but it just came to me: Those aren't hairs...they are ropes! They are issues composed of many, many strands, and I fret when folks seems to view them as simplistic, nondivisible points. Generalized blanket statements like AR282 is making about "institutionalized racism" gloss over the complexities of understanding a problem. I just try to unravel and examine the strands.

Ar282...Boy, it is hard to explain succinctly why I quibble with your analysis! I suppose we just must disagree about our basic premises. I think you are labeling WAY too many complex behaviors and actions under one term which is so emotionally loaded. "Racism" is a serious charge in this society, and to categorize all subconscious behavior that 'might' be suspect that way just doesn't take into account other motives. I KNOW there is racism...I do not LIKE racism.....I have been active for many years in combating racism, but there are few issues more complex and hard to sort out. It is many, many shades of gray, not just black & white.

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate
From: CarolC
Date: 12 May 06 - 02:12 PM

The WHITE HOUSE DID NOT INVITE COLBERT.

Bush was invited by the White House Correspondents' Association.

He knew it was a "roast", and he and his handlers also knew what the White House Correspondents' Association "roasts" are for, and what happens at those events. If Bush didn't want to get roasted (in the same manner that he's seen other presidents get roasted), he shouldn't have agreed to attend the event as guest of honor.

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 May 06 - 02:44 PM

And when YOU make a phone call, YOU know that the phone company keeps records, and sells that information. SO, YOU agree that it is OK for the government to be one of the many buyers, and use the information as it pleases.

Or you should not have agreed to the phone company providing you phone service.

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate
From: CarolC
Date: 12 May 06 - 02:49 PM

I actually don't know if my phone company does this, beardedbruce, although I would like to know. I use a company that is still fairly small, and I understand that some of the smaller ones don't do this.

But you have raised a good point. It would be good if people could choose, when they sign up for a phone service, whether or not to allow their information to be sold to the government. As of right now, people don't have that choice, unlike the president, who can easily choose not to attend roasts. People need telephones, the president doesn't need to attend roasts.

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 May 06 - 02:54 PM

Not JUST the government- This information is available on the commercial market. The Government is just buying what others have already gotten.

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate
From: CarolC
Date: 12 May 06 - 02:58 PM

This information is available on the commercial market.

Some of it is, and some of it isn't. Some of the information is being collected specifically for the government. But I do think people should be able to choose whether or not their information will be made available to other parties.

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 May 06 - 03:06 PM

"Some of the information is being collected specifically for the government. "

Phone number called, where called from, time hooked up- ALL on your bill, and commercially available to anyone who wishes to purchase it...

What specifically does the government get beyond that?

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate
From: CarolC
Date: 12 May 06 - 03:28 PM

A database that was created specifically for the NSA by at least one phone company. The software was created just for them. So technically, it's not my information that is uniquely available to them, it's more a system of using my information that is uniquely available to them.

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 May 06 - 03:32 PM

"it's more a system of using my information that is uniquely available to them. "

EVERY commercial user of purchased databases has "a system of using my information that is uniquely available to them."

Look at your bulk/3rd class mail.

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate
From: CarolC
Date: 12 May 06 - 03:43 PM

Perhaps you're right about that. There is a big difference, however, between commercial interest having access to and collecting that information, and a government doing the same, for reasons that I figure ought to be obvious to anyone who considers him or herself to be a "conservative" (using the US definition of "conservative"... big government = bad).

Having said that, I don't like the fact that anyone can collect, sell, and/or use that information whether I like it or not.

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 May 06 - 03:44 PM

You would say that the government, for the purpose of the public good, has FEWER rights than commercial entities?

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate
From: CarolC
Date: 12 May 06 - 03:48 PM

Well, a "conservative" would certainly say that.

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate
From: Bobert
Date: 12 May 06 - 04:10 PM

Hmmmmm???

Wonder how one thinks one can scream one's way into, ahhhh, getting other folks to participate in a "reasonable" discussion???

I'll put the Wes Ginny Slide Rule to work on this one...

Warning: thread drift..

Ahhhh, BillD... Have you ever turned Paradise trees... I have one that somehow got into it's mid that it wnated to corkscrew 2 complete revolutions before straightening out??? Prolly purdy cool inside and the tree is coming down anayway???

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 May 06 - 04:14 PM

Bobert,

"Wonder how one thinks one can scream one's way into, ahhhh, getting other folks to participate in a "reasonable" discussion???"

My screams were an expression of my frustration at the knee-jerk reaction by some to what I THOUGHT was a reasonable request.


Or, as I posted:

"I was screaming.
...
Sorry if my human frustration with not getting a reasonable discussion of a topic of interest came out-"


I wonder how you can reply to a post with so little awareness of what was written? Or were you intentionally being a nasty SOB?

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate
From: Bill D
Date: 12 May 06 - 04:22 PM

Paradise Tree? The only Paradise tree I know is tropical. You got one that far North?

Nope...have never had any of that wood. I have no idea what the timber is like. (always 'interested')


Geez, Bruce & Carol...you DO go on at length at strange angles...

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 May 06 - 04:25 PM

"Knowledge implies consent"


Right?


8-{E

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate
From: CarolC
Date: 12 May 06 - 04:29 PM

Yes, but nobody can split a hair like you do, Bill.

;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate
From: GUEST,AR282
Date: 12 May 06 - 05:15 PM

>>Ar282...Boy, it is hard to explain succinctly why I quibble with your analysis! I suppose we just must disagree about our basic premises.<<

Or maybe deep down, you see what I'm getting at and you're afraid you might have not only bought into racism but may have hurt people because of it without realizing it--until now.

So you stay and quibble as much as you hate to. It reminds me of that one song from "The Wall": "I want to go home/Take off this uniform and leave the show/But I'm waiting in this cell because I have to know/Have I been guilty all this time?"

>>I think you are labeling WAY too many complex behaviors and actions under one term which is so emotionally loaded. "Racism" is a serious charge in this society, and to categorize all subconscious behavior that 'might' be suspect that way just doesn't take into account other motives.<<

Because those motives don't matter. What matters is the end result of the person who has been victimized. You're a cabbie who pases a black man standing in the rain trying to flag you down and then you punch out and go home. Doesn't affect you at all. Meanwhile, there's a pissed off man standing in the rain trying to get home too. And he KNOWS why no one will pick him up. He's the one who has been hurt and it is because of his race--nothing more--because if he wasn't black, he'd be home by now. And he knows it.

>>I KNOW there is racism...I do not LIKE racism.....I have been active for many years in combating racism, but there are few issues more complex and hard to sort out. It is many, many shades of gray, not just black & white.<<

And what about affirmative action--the practice that denies whites equal access to certain schools and classes--do you favor that? Is it racism or are there many more factors that make it justifiable to tell a white person: "Yes your grades in high school were excellent, yes you passed the entrance exam with flying colors, yes you scored far higher than the black, Native and Hispanic students and, yes, you also took time to come down here early and enrolled in the class before them. But we're going to admit them and turn you away. It's not racism, it's far more complex than that. We have to right wrongs here. How long do we practice this? For as long as there is racism."

Tell that to Jennifer Gratz and see if she buys it. In fact, tell that to white America and see how it flies. It's never racism until it is directed at you and then you see that it is nothing but.

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate
From: Bill D
Date: 12 May 06 - 06:03 PM

"Because those motives don't matter. What matters is the end result of the person who has been victimized."

I was trying NOT to continue the quibbling, because, as I said, you & I have different 1st premises & definitions....I, for example, disagree with the juxtaposition of your sentences. I agree wholeheartedly that end results do matter. If a situation unfairly creates victims and causes discrimination and problems, I will help you right it. I was on a picket line in Hattiesburg Mississippi in 1964 when voting rights were being denied to more than half the population. I even was the deciding factor in getting a black state senator elected to office in Kansas against an avowed racist in the late 60s.

But I disagree that the motives don't matter. What I saw in Mississippi was RACISM. It was also wrong! I have since seen people 'dissatisfied' with actions & decisions - some of whom I agreed with and some whom I didn't, who got the short end of the stick because of actions were sometime wrong & unfair, but that were NOT racist, but were simply dumb, economic, greedy or careless. I might also try to right those wrongs, but HOW I do it can differ a lot when I can discern motives! (yes, sometimes you can....especially when the culprit admits it.)

"And what about affirmative action--the practice that denies whites equal access to certain schools and classes--do you favor that?"

As a matter of fact, I have serious problems with the application of some types of affermative action....not with the concept, because I am totally in favor of those who have been discriminated against and who would not otherwise get a fair shake getting the 'break' when things are basically equal otherwise...test scores & such. I just do not favor 'packing' and quotas which do a disservice to the public by passing over those with MUCH better credentials for jobs and school entry.....Special aid and schooling should be given to help the unqualified GET qualified and be able to compete on a level playing field. I'd love to see a society where it was hard to find discrimination and racism, but I'm not going to buy into a setup where all dissatisfaction is labeled racism. Just too simplistic and unrealistic. I assume you disagree....and thus I suggest again that we differ on 1st premises, are are unlikely to be able to debate too deeply.

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate
From: GUEST,AR282
Date: 12 May 06 - 06:53 PM

>>I was trying NOT to continue the quibbling, because, as I said, you & I have different 1st premises & definitions....I, for example, disagree with the juxtaposition of your sentences. I agree wholeheartedly that end results do matter. If a situation unfairly creates victims and causes discrimination and problems, I will help you right it. I was on a picket line in Hattiesburg Mississippi in 1964 when voting rights were being denied to more than half the population. I even was the deciding factor in getting a black state senator elected to office in Kansas against an avowed racist in the late 60s.<<

Do you see the danger of your thinking proccess? "I stood up for civil rights, I'm not a racist. Therefore, when I shoo a black man out of my store it can't be racism because I have proven I am not a racist." The real danger is that you are far from alone in feeling that way. That's why I call it institutionalized racism--it's general societal consensus that becomes part of how we do business. It's the worst form of racism precisley because so many refuse to recognize it as such. Because you're not burning a cross on someone's lawn doesn't mean you're not hurting them when you decide with everyone else that their kind DOES in fact commit a lot of crime or do cause property values to fall. And that softer attitude towards that racism creates an atmosphere for the hardcore variety to rear its head.

>>As a matter of fact, I have serious problems with the application of some types of affermative action....not with the concept, because I am totally in favor of those who have been discriminated against and who would not otherwise get a fair shake getting the 'break' when things are basically equal otherwise...test scores & such. I just do not favor 'packing' and quotas which do a disservice to the public by passing over those with MUCH better credentials for jobs and school entry.....<<

And where do you draw the line? When it's suddenly you getting short-ended? Did Jennifer Gratz deserve to go the the U of M law school or not? Was the decision to shut her out racist since it was based on a racial quota?

>>Special aid and schooling should be given to help the unqualified GET qualified and be able to compete on a level playing field.<<

Why? They can get qualified right now if they want to. There's really nothing preventing it. The Jim Crow South is dead. That form of racism is pretty dead. The racism now is much more subtle and "friendly" these days. And, in its own way, far worse because the results are often the same and it is far harder to eradicate.

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate
From: Bobert
Date: 12 May 06 - 08:38 PM

Hmmmmmm?

Pushing 100,000 deaths from Bush's war against the Iraqi people and, yeah, I'm mad a s Hell but I've also adhered to the unwritten but acceoted rules here at Mudcat in not screamin' at fellow Mudcatters...

Yet here we have a danged "skit" where no one even neeeded minor medical attention and we have all this SCREAMING...

I think someone needs a little anger manangement counselin'...

Hey, that's the way it looks from here...

Okay, I'll admit that when I first came here I did a lot of SCREAMING as well... Then a few folks PM'd me and told me that I was hurting my arguments by SCREAMING and so I have not done it since those days and, hey, I reckon mu arguments are just as effwective, or more, 'cause they sho nuff tend to piss off the Bushites here...

And, yeah, what AR said... The racism is a lot more sophisticated these days... Practice makes perfect, you know... Lester Madox wouldn't be able to learnt up the ***new 'n improved*** racism...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate
From: Bill D
Date: 12 May 06 - 10:27 PM

do I see the danger of my thinking process?...Why, no, I don't believe I do...because you have misrepresented how I think...Your example, as before, is a "straw man" argument, making up a hypothetical case, and shooting IT down.

Yes, of course some folks have 'refined' their racism and discrimination...Lester Maddox won't use axe handles this time. But every example of a black man not being 'accommodated' is not automatically racism. Why is it so hard to see that? Even if 84% of the time it were, it is not ALWAYS....and in order deal with that 84%, ot 71% or 53%,we need VERY much to not make the worst possible assumption. It is easier to educate when we are not accusing. Even those who are sympathetic can be lost if their attempts to do 'right' are denigrated. Tell them "we need to do more" or tell them "that isn't helping much" if you must disapprove of their actions, but sneering "racism" for everything will lose you credibility.

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate
From: CarolC
Date: 13 May 06 - 01:32 PM

Phone number called, where called from, time hooked up- ALL on your bill, and commercially available to anyone who wishes to purchase it...

I've checked it out. This statement from you is incorrect. According to the law...


"Under Section 222 of the Communications Act, first passed in 1934, telephone companies are prohibited from giving out information regarding their customers' calling habits: whom a person calls, how often and what routes those calls take to reach their final destination. Inbound calls, as well as wireless calls, also are covered.

The financial penalties for violating Section 222, one of many privacy reinforcements that have been added to the law over the years, can be stiff. The Federal Communications Commission, the nation's top telecommunications regulatory agency, can levy fines of up to $130,000 per day per violation"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060511/ts_nm/security_usa_phonecalls_dc_1

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate
From: CarolC
Date: 13 May 06 - 01:48 PM

Oops. I gave the wrong link. Here's the right one...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm